“SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light,” according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

“Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from ‘reflecting adversely’ on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals,” the group said.

“Pushing this radical homosexual agenda in California schools will stifle the truth in favor of political correctness and will inevitably conflict with the religious and moral convictions of both students and parents,” said CRI Executive Director Karen England. “The full ramifications of this sweeping legislation could affect the entire nation as most textbook companies tailor their material to their number one purchaser: California.”

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

“Mom” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” would have to be edited from all texts.

Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.

Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.

Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.

A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women’s restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men’s room.

Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.

“It’s embarrassing that we’ve got kids who can’t pass their exit exams, but we add all sorts of complications [to school],” she told WND.

She cited an informational document published by the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center.

“If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so,” it advises. “Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible.”

Further, the groups advise, “If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you.”

“Schools need to do a much better job teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic, not a better job advertising controversial sexual lifestyles to captive six-year-olds,” he said.

He also noted that, just as last year, two other bills also are pending: AB 394 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would demand that schools distribute to students “anti-harassment” education programs, and AB 675 by Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, would give $1 million to pay for homosexual, bisexual and transsexual activists to turn 10 public schools into “sexual indoctrination centers.”

Last year three similar bills were approved by California lawmakers, but were vetoed by the governor.

Many groups, including several national outreaches such as the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, had lobbied for the veto.

One of last year’s plans would have required the State Board of Education to increase sensitivity to so-called “discrimination.” Under the plan the state Superintendent of Public Instruction would have had unlimited discretion to withhold state funds from schools that did not comply with that individual’s interpretation of the law.

A second would have “integrated tolerance training” into history and social science curriculum and started a pilot program that would have forced students to learn a “new definition” of tolerance, one that would require them to not only accept but advocate for homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism, according to the CRI.

The third would have banned anything that “reflected adversely” on homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders.

Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler, R-Elk Grove, described them as no more or less than “indoctrination, designed to inculcate our children and our grandchildren.”